0
    0

    Comment on To Comply or not to Comply ? by scottc.

    John Clark 13th August 2018 at 11:00  

     

    This Thursday, 'P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders sec 955'   is listed as a 'proof' hearing.

    I have had a wee look at what that might mean ( things that seem obvious are sometimes not what you think when it comes to legal stuff) 

    So I search-engined and came across

     www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2016/02/the-scottish-civil-justice-system/
     

    where there is this:

    "Substantive hearings are different in Scotland. Civil trials are called “proofs”. A proof is a hearing of the evidence in a case. A proof is appropriate where there is a factual dispute between the parties……"

    So, on Thursday, one party  will presumably, be trying to show that he has  in fact complied with both the TOP's order and the Court Order.

     

    Is it not true that at an earlier hearing, Mr King made it plain that NOAL 'owned' the shares and it was NOAL who should make the offer? This was, as far as I can recall, accepted. NOAL are NOT based in South Africa, so DK has made a conscious decision to use a SA based trust to 'make the offer', knowing full well he cannot get the money out of the country

    scottc Also Commented

    To Comply or not to Comply ?

    Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 20:53  
     

    theredpill 12th August 2018 at 20:44
     

    Thought this was hilariously funny.

    Just keeps going onto the princes street gardens story. Always had this problem with the scotsman links,just keeps going back to the hot topics page.

     

    CO, Right click the link and open in an incognito window


    To Comply or not to Comply ?

    CLUSTER ONE
    JULY 7, 2018 at 11:18
    B e f o r e :MR. JUSTICE BRYAN____________________Between:SDI RETAIL SERVICES LIMITEDClaimant– and –
    DAVID KINGPAUL MURRAYTHE RANGERS FOOTBALL LIMITED RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED——————–Why Paul murray when he has walked away.and could this be another reason Pau murray walked away?

    Presumably PM is included as a signatory to the original contract. Best thing, for me about this whole episode, is that this case is in front of an English court. There will be no ‘establishment’ protection


    To Comply or not to Comply ?

    KENTES1

    JUNE 26, 2018 at 00:20
    Cheers creepily will try that any info about how to get rid of the social media icons on the bottom of the screen.Cheers

    Kentes1, not sure you will get rid of the icons but look up the ‘Brave’ browser. That automatically blocks a great deal of ‘froth’ 


    Recent Comments by scottc

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?

    Cluster One 

    11th November 2018 at 07:47

    “RIFC understands that Laird has the funds to make the offer in an attorney client account and is seeking the necessary South African Government approvals to permit the cash required for the offer to be transferred to the United Kingdom to enable an appropriate third party to provide the cash confirmation required by Rule 24.8 of the Code.”
    ……………….
    I believe someone pointed out that Laird is not based in South Africa.

     

    I think it is NOAL who are not in SA


    Stevie G – The Real Deal?

    Allyjambo 7th November 2018 at 11:45

    I may have missed previous reference to this, or have my NOALs in a twist, but comfort was given in the latest TRFC accounts by stating that NOAL will provide the cash for the certain shortfall again this season, despite the fact that they failed to come up with the promised money last season. But didn't the SA authorities make it difficult/impossible for King to get his money out of the country to satisfy the TOP order? And if so, how on earth can this promise of funding be accepted by the auditors, and the SFA, in view of such a double whammy?

     

    NOAL aren't based in SA so have no problem moving money to the UK.

    Although it was NOAL who were permitted to make the share offer, in another bit of blatant maneouvering, DCK tried to use another entity, which was SA based, to provide the money. Just more smoke and mirrors to avoid doing the right thing


    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    naegreetin 3rd October 2018 at 11:38  

    By the way , does anyone know where Regan ended up ?

     

    He started a consulting company. Not sure exactly what he is consulting on though. 


    Fantastic Voyage ..

    Bill1903 

    26th August 2018 at 08:10  

     

    One big hitter who left was ecobhoy/ecojon 

    He used to contribute massively to this forum 

    I often wonder what happened to him?

    Perhaps he started his own site? 

     

    I guess the 'big hitters' are really just frequent posters. A few people have genuine insight into new information, but very few and not really a huge amount of it. Mostly, we are restating established positions and with each inkling of something different happening, we are restating our beliefs and weighing how the new information/incident will, or might, affect those beliefs. 

    Occasionally we put some thoughts together and come up with something new that still has to be proved, but which fits the bill. It might, or might not, become accepted.

    When a poster arrives to challenge our beliefs, it gives us a chance to reiterate the whens, the whys, the whats, the whos and the hows of the things we know or believe. It's actually helpful in that respect, even if it does not 'convert' the new poster, although it can become a bit circular and draining and it tends to be the same people who are making the refutations and arguing the SFM side.

    This is one of the reasons why I think a detailed timeline, containing all the documentation, newspaper reports etc should be linked from the site. It would allow others to join in the discussion from a position of strength with evidenced arguments.

    Ecojohn could be a good contributor at times, but he brooked no argument with his position on anything; or at least that was the impression I got. I was saddened to lose some of his work, but by no means all of his contributions.


    Is it time for the Sin Bin?

    SLIMJIM
    APRIL 22, 2018 at 18:02

    SCOTTCPersonally speaking i find the split has been a decent idea, with teams playing their closest competitors at a crucial part of the season thus providing a additional level of interest and hopefully larger attendances. I wasn’t implying any bias against my team, just putting out some stats that may surprise some on the site.

    It’s certainly true that there is an additional level of interest with them playing their close rivals at the end of the season. It does make certain games much more interesting but there are always going to be winners and losers with the home/away mix and the 18/19/20 Home/Away games. I have got kind of used to it though and since it will never affect my team, don’t really mind whether it stays or not. 09